Non-Negotiables

Some issues allow for a diversity of opinion, and Catholics are permitted leeway in endorsing or opposing particular policies.  This is the case with the questions of when to go to war and when to apply the death penalty.  Though the Church urges caution regarding both of these issues, it acknowledges that the state has the right to employ them in some circumstances (CCC 2309, 2267).

Pope Benedict XVI, when he was still Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, spoke of this in a document dealing with when Catholics may receive Communion:

“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.  For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion.  While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment.  There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia” (WRHC 3).

The same is true of many other issues that are the subject of political debate: the best way to help the poor, to manage the economy, to protect the environment, to handle immigration, and to provide education, health care and retirement security.  Catholics may legitimately take different approaches to these issues while the same cannot be said for euthanasia and abortion, two actions which are always wrong no matter the circumstances.  The protection of innocent life always takes precedence to all other issues.  What good are all other rights if one does not have the right to life?

God Bless
Nathan

Ref: Catholic Answers, Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics, Catholic Answers Press, 16 pgs, 2016

Masonic Associations

It has come to my attention that many Catholics who are otherwise faithful Catholics are unaware of the official position of the Catholic Church that not only are faithful Catholics not to associate (to become members) of any Masonic associations (including Shriners) but they are not to participate in Communion if they do join a masonic group.  The seriousness of this association is so severe that we are to avoid receiving the Eucharist as if they had performed a mortal sin.

Below is the entire document explaining the Church’s position on this situation written because of the many confusions on why the most recent Code of Canon law seemed to have changed its position from the previous years and centuries.

This document can be found at the Vatican website located at the address below or one can simply do a Google search with the terms “Masonic Associations Vatican” the first link should be the actual document in question, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19831126_declaration-masonic_en.html

This most recent and official declaration on this subject was written by Joseph Card. RATZINGER who later became Pope Benedict XVI and was ratified, ie accepted, by Saint Pope John Paul II.  Please pay particular attention to the highlighted areas.

DECLARATION ON MASONIC ASSOCIATIONS

It has been asked whether there has been any change in the Church’s decision in regard to Masonic associations since the new Code of Canon Law does not mention them expressly, unlike the previous Code.

This Sacred Congregation is in a position to reply that this circumstance in due to an editorial criterion which was followed also in the case of other associations likewise unmentioned inasmuch as they are contained in wider categories.

Therefore the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enrol in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion.

It is not within the competence of local ecclesiastical authorities to give a judgment on the nature of Masonic associations which would imply a derogation from what has been decided above, and this in line with the Declaration of this Sacred Congregation issued on 17 February 1981 (cf. AAS 73 1981 pp. 240-241; English language edition of L’Osservatore Romano, 9 March 1981).

In an audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II approved and ordered the publication of this Declaration which had been decided in an ordinary meeting of this Sacred Congregation.

Rome, from the Office of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 26 November 1983.

Joseph Card. RATZINGER
Prefect

God Bless
Nathan

The Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ

This Sunday we commemorate the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ.  And for this occasion I thought I’d bring out another solid argument on the Real Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist.

In today’s second reading we find Paul reciting what he was told about Jesus’ words at the Last Supper but what you don’t hear is the explanation on why this is not a mere symbolic remembrance.  At the end of today’s reading, the very next verse and following we find Paul stating: 

“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.  Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.  That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.” (1 Cor 11:27-30)

The clue that precludes a mere symbolic understanding of the Eucharist is St. Paul’s usage of “guilty of blood,” which is a figure of speech connoting murder (Nm 35:27; Ez 35:6).  One incurs the “guilt of blood” only if the victim is present in person.  If someone fires a gun at a picture of the President of the United States, that person is not guilty of the President’s blood.  But if someone actually shoots the President, then that person is guilty of the President’s blood.

St. Paul says that we are guilty of Jesus’ blood if we partake of the Eucharist unworthily.  Therefore, we cannot conclude that St. Paul understood the Eucharist to be a mere symbol.  He must mean the Eucharist is Jesus present in person, with his body, blood, soul, and divinity.

And lastly, There are several other ways Jesus could have more clearly indicated that His words of institution (This is my body, this is my blood) was symbolism if He had wished to do so.  Aramaic [Jesus’ native language] has around three-dozen words that can mean ‘represents.’  That’s why Paul warns us that we are to discern the body (if we partake in an unworthy manner, then we are guilty of the blood of Christ.  Now, how can we ‘discern’ the body if it’s merely a symbol?  We can’t!  We are to discern the body in the Eucharist because the Eucharist IS the body.

God Bless
Nathan

Adapted from a Catholic Answers Newsletter

Question for Catholics - part 5 The Eucharist and John 6

For this section, Mr. Prasch asks about John 6 and the Eucharist and challenges that he has yet to have a priest be able to answer him and "perhaps you can?"  I hope Mr. Prasch did not mean that rhetorically and is actually looking for responses and will acknowledge them. 

____________________________

But I have yet another question.

In the Gospel of St. John 6 I've heard it quoted, quoted, quoted, and re-quoted as applying to the Eucharist. We read the following, I’m beginning in verse 47…

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

Notice St. John, quoting Jesus, says that Jesus said if you believe in Jesus you have eternal life. “He who believes in the Son has eternal life, he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.” – the Gospel of St. John 3:36 in the Roman Catholic Bible. Jesus said, “If a man believes in Me though he die yet shall He live for he’s passed from death to life” – the Gospel of St. John 5:24 according to the Roman Catholic Bible. Belief is the key to eternal life.

A point I like to bring out in response to this argument, Prasch has brought up himself, but glosses over it.  "He who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him."  So, if the Son commands you, not once, not twice, not even five or six times, but NINE TIMES in a single context to eat His body and/or drink His blood - you should obey Him, if you want eternal life in you!  Do not try to rationalize your way out of this nine-fold command, just obey it!  What kind of belief do you have if you refuse to obey Him?  Let us continue with Prasch's question(s) and arguments.

Let us continue...

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”

Unless you eat His flesh and drink His blood you cannot live.  I'm told this is the Eucharist and it is the key to eternal life. That's what I was taught in Catholic school. The context, however, going all the way back to verse 32 is the Exodus. No fewer than three places Jesus says in the same passage that the key – the key – to eternal life is belief.

Again, it is "no fewer than three places," it is actually nine places in this small section.  In John 6, nine times Jesus commands we partake of His body and/or blood stating His flesh is real food and His blood is real drink - not symbolism or parable.

__________________________

The Hebrew prophet Jeremiah said the following in 15:16…

Your words were found and I ate them…

The Word becomes flesh. You “eat” the Word by believing it. “He who believes has eternal life”. Jesus says in John 6, the flesh profits nothing. How could it possibly be the key to eternal life? You have three problems; that's what I discovered as a Catholic.

Prophetic vision statements of eating "words" are not the same thing as obeying Jesus' nine-fold command to eat/drink His flesh/blood.  So, how could this possibly be the key to eternal life?  Because Jesus said it is!  Jesus did not just issue the commands and then leave everyone to figure it out for themselves.  No, to those who had faith in Him, did not turn and walk away from Him, He provides the means of fulfilling this command in instituting the Eucharist.

Back in John 6, the Jews accepted Jesus' words as literal - and they walked away because they could not believe His words.  Jesus did not chase after them and say, "Hold on guys!  That was symbolic language, I was speaking in parables."  No, He did not, and when He spoke in parables, He explained the meaning of the parables to His Apostles - did He explain away the literal meaning here?  No!  He doubled down and said, "Will you also leave?"  No fluffy rationalizations, He meant what He said and the Jews and many of His own disciples "turned and walked with Him no more" (John 6:66-67).  

  The key IS belief, and part of believing would include obeying our Lord and Savior.  He commanded it, so don't try to use rationalizations to get out of accepting Him, Jesus Christ, at His word.  It's time to come home, Jacob.

For the full-length answer please go to: http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2015/10/questions-for-catholics-part-5.html

God Bless
Nathan

The Bread of Life

Today I would like to talk about one particular verse from today’s Gospel reading but first I strongly suggest you go to you Bible and read the Bread of Life discourse where we find this particular verse.

Go ahead and read carefully the Gospel of John, Chapter 6, verses 22 through 58.  About this section about being the Bread of Life and that we must eat this bread and drink this blood to have eternal life.

 

1. The first thing to notice is “what else could Jesus have said to make it any more plain?”  Six times He tells them that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood.  6 times!
    
2. Second, He doesn’t correct those that leave Him for misunderstanding Him since they thought He spoke literally while He supposedly spoke only symbolically.  My question is: why didn’t He say so before they left Him?
    
3. Thirdly, the apostle John recounts Jesus using two different words when speaking of ‘eating’ His flesh.  In the beginning of His discourse He uses the word “PHAGO” which is defined as ‘eat’ and which can sometimes be taken symbolically.  But when the Jews have difficulty accepting Jesus’ second attempt at clarifying His teaching Jesus switches to the word “TROGO” in verse 54 when speaking of ‘eating’ His flesh, a word which is NEVER used symbolically in Scripture and means to ‘munch, gnaw or crunch’ His Flesh making it extremely clear that Jesus was speaking literally.
    
   And so Jesus let the Jews leave because they understood Him correctly, they just couldn’t accept this ‘hard teaching.’

And so Jesus let the Jews leave because they understood Him correctly, they just couldn’t accept this ‘hard teaching.’

And my favorite verse of the whole ‘Bread of Life’ discourse is verse 51.

Verse 51 of John 6 says this: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven.  If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.”

Jesus is the living bread.  We are to eat this bread.  This bread that He gives for us to eat is the flesh that He will give for the life of the world.    If the bread is symbolically His flesh then the flesh that He gives for the life of the world must be symbolic as well.  That’s how Jesus describes it.  Was the flesh on the cross symbolic? Or real?  The flesh that we are to eat, is it symbolic or real?  If the flesh on the cross is real then the bread that we are to eat is that same flesh.  This verse makes it impossible to accept a symbolic reckoning of the flesh we are to eat and the blood we are to drink.

God Bless
Nathan

 

Corpus Christi

Truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ

Individuals can make mistakes or misunderstand their teachers BUT the fact that we find a continuous and unbroken chain of Christians believing in the real presence of our Lord in the Eucharist is not only extremely strong evidence that this belief was in existence from the very first moments of Christian history but that it was taught by the Apostles themselves.

 

I mean, a follower of Jesus could reject what He taught but the others who were taught directly by Jesus would not all teach the same error.

 

Let’s go back through time to find what Christians believed on the Real Presence.

 

In our Catechism, the official teaching of the Church on the Eucharist, we find the catechism quoting the council of Trent from 1551 which means that the belief in the real presence to have been existence for at least from 1551 to today:

 

Paragraph 1376 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again , that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

 

The Reformation brought on the need for the Council of Trent because many started teaching contrary to the Church on many matters including the Real Presence. But what about before that time?

 

431 AD

Council of Ephesus

"We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all.  And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius)

 

 

c.400 AD

"[Christ] took the bread and the cup, each in a similar fashion, and said: 'This is My Body and this is My Blood.' Not a figure of His body nor a figure of His blood, as some persons of petrified mind are wont to rhapsodize, but in truth the Body and the Blood of Christ." (Marcus the Magnesian)

 

c. 370 AD

"You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ. " (St Augustine)

 

325 AD

Council of Nicaea I

"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it] " (Canon 18).

 

212 AD

The flesh is anointed, so that the soul may be dedicated to holiness. The flesh is signed, so that the soul too may be fortified. The flesh is shaded by the imposition of hands, so that the soul too may be illuminated by the Spirit. The flesh feeds on the Body and Blood of Christ, so that the soul too may fatten on God. (Tertullian)

 

c.180 AD

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own Blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own Body, from which He gives increase to our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the Body of Christ , and from these the substance of our body is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life.” (Ireaneus of Lyons)

 

c. 150 AD

“For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.” (St Justin Martyr)

 

 

c.110

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire His blood, which is love incorruptible.” (Ignatius of Antioch)

 

Or

 

“They [the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again.” (Ignatius of Antioch)

 

Now consider this, Ignatius learned from the Apostles themselves. Did he misunderstand them? Isn’t it much more likely that he remembered what he was taught and taught others who would succeed him as Justin Martyr did, and Irenaeus, Augustine even councils speaking for the whole church teaching as the first followers of the original Apostles taught and all speaking with one voice on the matter? The fact of the matter is the belief of the presence of the Body and Blood of being truly present in the Eucharist is a belief found throughout the two millennia of Christian history and without break.  The idea of a symbolic presence only in the Eucharist is a novelty, a tradition of man.

 

God Bless

Nathan

Do I Have to Go?

"Mass is boring." "I don't get anything out of Mass — why should I go?" “Why can't I just pray alone?”

These are common feelings, especially among young people but among many adults as well. The great Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, when conducting a retreat for teenagers, once gave a talk on the meaning of the Mass. He said, "If you don't get anything out of Mass, it's because you don't bring the right expectations to it." The Mass is not entertainment, he said. It is worship of the God who made us and saves us. It is an opportunity to praise God and thank Him for all that He has done for us.

If we have a correct understanding of Mass, Bishop Sheen said, it will become more meaningful for us. We will want to go to Mass. We will understand why the Mass is God's precious gift to us, and we wouldn't think of refusing that gift.

The Eucharist is the lynchpin of this argument.  At the institution of the Mass Jesus said to “do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19).  Will you deny Him when He commands you to go and receive Him in the Eucharist.  Will you freely and willingly abstain from eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood as He commanded?

The Church is instituted by Christ (“and on this rock I will build my church” Matt 16:18).  And Christ gave this Church the authority to bind and loose on matters of faith and morals those who would follow Him in the faith (“whatever you [ie, the Apostles] bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven  Matt 18:18).  He told the apostles that those who won’t even listen to the Church that they are to be considered as pagans and tax-collectors (“If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax-collector.Matt 18:16-17), ie outside of the Church.  Therefore, it is a mortal sin to knowingly and freely ignore what the Church has bound.  And the Church has determined to be binding that of receiving Him as He commanded us, on a weekly basis.  At a minimum, to receive on the day of the week that He Rose from the dead, Sunday (or the Vigil Mass the night before).  To knowingly and freely reject or ignore this binding decree is to reject the authority of His Church, a grave sin.

We ought to go to Mass on a weekly basis not simply to avoid removing ourselves from the Body of Christ but for the much better reason to show our gratitude for what He has done for us.  Indeed, the word ‘Eucharist’ comes to us from the Greek. The earliest Christians called it ‘Eucharistia’ which means ‘Thanksgiving’.

The Mass is, in part, a meal.  At the consecration, the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.  Not just a symbol, but Jesus’ real flesh and real blood, under the appearance of bread and wine.  When we receive Holy Communion, we receive Jesus Himself.  He is real food for our soul.  He told us as much when He said: “I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.  Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.  My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.  Whoever eats my and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.” (John 6:55-56)

To refuse reception of this greatest gift of Himself is to refuse Him.  Please, please, do not abstain from the greatest gift we can ever receive: The gift of God Himself in the flesh. 

 

God Bless
Nathan

Missing Sunday Mass

Why is skipping Sunday Mass a mortal sin?

Today some Christians have adopted a very casual idea concerning public Sunday worship. To them, because people can pray in private, there is no real need to pray within a community. But concerning private and public worship, Catholics do not see this as an "either…or" situation, but a "both…and."

Throughout the entire history of the Church, attending Sunday Mass has been considered an essential aspect of living one's Christian Faith. Consider the countless brave Christians who risked and endured persecution and execution by various totalitarian regimes in order to go to Mass. In many times and places, the opportunity to attend Mass was (and still is) likewise an opportunity for martyrdom. They believed that the rewards greatly outweighed the risks. And what are the rewards? The reception of the very Body and Blood of Christ, a participation in the sacrifice of Calvary, the reception of sanctifying grace, the guidance and empowerment to live virtuously, the opportunity to gather and support one another as a family of faith, the chance to express thanks and praise to God as a community, and many other things besides.

Consider what I have presented here in light of the following teachings from the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Quote:  Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:53-54) 

Quote:  "…and let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another…" (Hebrews 10:24-25; emphasis added) 

Quote:  CCC # 2182: Participation in the communal celebration of the Sunday Eucharist is a testimony of belonging and of being faithful to Christ and to his Church. The faithful give witness by this to their communion in faith and charity. Together they testify to God's holiness and their hope of salvation. They strengthen one another under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. 

Also consider the 3rd Commandment (which Protestants number as the 4th):

Quote:  "Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy" (Exodus 20:8) 

As you know, Christians transfer the observance of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday (i.e., the Lord's Day; as described in CCC #2174 & 2175). The Catechism teaches that attending Sunday Mass is one of the ways in which we obey this commandment:

Quote: CCC #2176: The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship "as a sign of his universal beneficence to all." Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people. 

The ancient Christians referred to the Mass as "the breaking of bread". For example, "On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them…" (Acts 20:7). St. Justin Martyr, writing in the 2nd Century, gives us a very detailed description of Sunday Mass in a document called the First Apology (most notably in Chapter 67 of this work). Such references underscore the importance of Sunday Mass, and show how from the beginning it was considered a foundational aspect of Christian living.

Sunday Mass is a wonderful gift from God and is a time for spiritual enrichment and joyful fellowship. But in light of all that I have presented, it is also (as we say about very important things in life) "serious business." If something is serious business then refusing to do it must result in serious consequences. The Catechism addresses this in the following manner:

Quote: CCC #2181: The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor. Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin. 

In terms of the Precepts of the Church, the obligation to attend Sunday Mass is included in the 1st Precept.

Simply put, if people believe that Sunday Mass is no big deal, then such a view is contrary to the beliefs of the martyrs, to what has historically been taught in Christianity, and to the biblical passages I quoted above. On the other hand, those who believe that Sunday Mass is, indeed, a big deal must admit that that skipping it is likewise a big deal (or else there is a strange disconnect between the great worth of the Mass that one professes, and the small value one ascribes to it when it is missed). In stating that to knowingly and willingly miss Mass on a Sunday or Holy Day of Obligation results in mortal sin, the consequence of rejecting so great a gift is clearly depicted. Participating in Sunday Mass is a life-giving experience, and the only realistic consequence of a serious rejection of life-giving grace is spiritual death, which culpability to mortal sin entails.

Fr. William Saunders: "Is Missing Mass a Mortal Sin?" found here http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0111.html

God Bless
Nathan

Real Presence, Part 4

“A type is a person, thing, or event in the Old Testament that foreshadows something to come later in time. It is like a taste or hint of something that will be fulfilled or realized. Types are like pictures that come alive in a new and exciting way when seen through the eyes of Christ’s revelation.” The type is always lesser than the anti-type. The anti-type (New Testament event) is always greater than its type (shadow of an event in the Old Testament). And both are independent of each other.

Many of the first Christians used this method to find new insights in the Scriptures. We see these‘types’, or ‘figures’ or examples in many places in Scripture like in 1 Cor 10:11 and Heb 11:19 for example.

One of these instances can be found in the Gospel of Matthew where we see that the Egyptian Exodus told in Hosea 11:1 is quoted exactly in Matt 2:15 when speaking of Jesus’ return to Israel from Egypt: “where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of EgyptI called my son."”

What Matthew has done here is he took an historical event and interpreted it as a shadow of something greater to come in the future, which he sees as ‘fulfilled’ in the person of Jesus the Messiah.

Other examples of Jesus Christ type/antitype pairs are:

A) Jonah in the belly of the whale is a type of Christ in the tomb. For Jonah stayed in the belly for three days as did Christ stay buried for three days until His resurrection as Jesus explained Himself “In the same way that Jonahspent three days and nights in the big fish, so will the Son of Man spend three days and nights in the depths of the earth. “(Matt 12:40)

B) The deadly bites of serpents are healed by the brazen serpent, which was lifted up that those bitten might look at it and live (Num 21:9). Jesus Himself gives the explanation of this: “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believes in Him may not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:14)

C) In God’s request that Abraham sacrifice his son Isaac (Gen 22:2) we find another type of Christ. The birth of both was supernatural (remember, Abraham was a hundred years old and Sarah an elderly woman when she bore Isaac). Both are sons of promise. Both were called “the only begotten son.”Both carried the wood of their own demise up the same mountain, Moriah. Both consented to endure death. Both were bound. Both were offered by their fathers. Both were laid on the wood. Both were in the vigor of life, and both live again after the offering.

D) Melchizadek is another type of Christ. We see evidence of this in Heb 6:20 “On our behalf Jesus has gone in there before us and has become a high priest forever, in the priestly order of Melchizedek.” and “Melchizedek, who was king of Salem and also a priest of the Most High God, brought bread and wine to Abram [whose name was later changed to Abraham] and blessed him, and said, "May the Most High God, who made heaven and earth, bless Abram!”(Gen 14:18)

In the Paschal lamb which the Israelites were commanded to eat as part of the Passover celebration is another strong foreshadowing of Christ. Each family is commanded to take a lamb without blemish and to sacrifice it (Exo 12:7-8). The lamb was to be roasted and eaten with unleavened bread and wild lettuce. The Paschal Lamb prefigured symbolically Christ, “The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29).

We can agree that Jesus is a priest forever of the order of Melchizedek (Heb 6:20), and that he is also the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29) because we find these statements in Holy Scripture. By putting these to types together we see that Jesus is a priest forever but also the sacrificial lamb to atone for our sins. Jesus as priest offers up to God a perfect sacrifice to atone for our sins, Himself. That sacrifice, as in the Passover sacrifice of the lamb, we are to EAT the lamb. Now, how are we to eat the lamb when the sacrifice is in the form of bread and wine? We find the solution in Jesus’ own words in the Last Supper when He raises up the bread and then the wine and says: “this is my body…this is my blood”. The bread and wine presented and consecrated is transformed into the body and blood of our Lord but in keeping the same form of bread and wine! A perfect fulfillment of both types including a third type where Jesus calls Himself the true bread of Heaven which gives eternal life! John 6:48-50 states “I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate manna in the desert, but they died. But the bread that comes down from heaven is of such a kind that whoever eats it will not die.”

The difference between Christ’s death on the cross – the event- and the Eucharist – the sacrament – is the difference between history and liturgy. The historical event happened once and it will never again be repeated (Heb 9:25-26). The liturgical sacrament, however, not only keeps the past from being forgotten; through it the Eucharist of history –Jesus’ passion and death – is made present again. While his act of physical death will never be repeated, Jesus’ act of total self-giving to the Father for us (Rom 8:32) continues eternally in Love – that is, the Holy Spirit.

This moment in salvation history is the culmination of all of Scripture. As the Israelites were to sacrifice and eat the Passover lamb, so now are we to re-present His sacrifice forever in the form of bread and wine and eat His body and drink His blood because HE is the perfect sacrificial Lamb that we are to eat for our salvation (John 6:51). As the first Isrealites had to eat the sacrificial lamb, so too must we do the same.

God Bless
Nathan

Real Presence, Part 3

Third reason to believe:  Scripture

For Scriptural verses supporting the Real Presence I will reference only two sections of our Bible.  John chapter 6, verse 51 and 1 Cor 11. 

 

JOHN 6 (Bread of Life Discourse)

Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. ³⁶ But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. ³⁷ All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.

-- Jews grumble at this.--

[…]
 
⁴⁷ Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. ⁴⁸ I am the bread of life. ⁴⁹ Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. ⁵⁰ But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. ⁵¹ I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

⁵² Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

⁵³ Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. ⁵⁴ Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. ⁵⁵ For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. ⁵⁶ Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. ⁵⁷ Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. ⁵⁸ This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” ⁵⁹ He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Many Disciples Desert Jesus

⁶⁰ On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” ⁶¹ Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? ⁶² Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! ⁶³ The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit^[e] and life. ⁶⁴ Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. ⁶⁵ He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”⁶⁶ From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

 

1)       The first thing to notice is “what else could Jesus have said to make it any more plain?”  Six times He tells them that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood.  6 times!

 

2)       Second, He doesn’t correct those that leave Him for misunderstanding Him since they thought He spoke literally while He supposedly spoke only symbolically.  My question is: why didn’t He say so before they left Him?

 

3)       Thirdly, the apostle John recounts Jesus using two different words when speaking of ‘eating’ His flesh.  In the beginning of His discourse He uses the word “PHAGO” which is defined as ‘eat’ and which can sometimes be taken symbolically.  But when the Jews have difficulty accepting Jesus’ second attempt at clarifying His teaching Jesus switches to the word “TROGO” in verse 54 when speaking of ‘eating’ His flesh, a word which is NEVER used symbolically in Scripture and means to ‘munch, gnaw or crunch’ His Flesh making it extremely clear that Jesus was speaking literally.

And so Jesus let the Jews leave because they understood Him correctly, they just couldn’t accept this ‘hard teaching.’

My favorite verse of the whole ‘Bread of Life’ discourse is verse 51.

Verse 51 of John 6 says this: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven.  If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.”

Jesus is the living bread.  We are to eat this bread.  This bread that He gives for us to eat is the flesh that He will give for the life of the world.    If the bread is symbolically His flesh then the flesh that He gives for the life of the world must be symbolic as well.  That’s how Jesus describes it.  Was the flesh on the cross symbolic? Or real?  The flesh that we are to eat, is it symbolic or real?  If the flesh on the cross is real then the bread that we are to eat is that same flesh.

In 1 Corinthians 11, verse 27.  Paul writes to the Corinthians about eating the bread and drinking of the cup unworthily, to do that is to be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.  Paul explains it this way: “Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.”  How can one sin against the body and blood by eating and drinking unworthily of the bread and wine UNLESS the bread and wine are now the body and blood of the Lord.

Two verses later, verse 29, Paul explains how it can be a sin to eat and drink unworthily.  It’s a sin because: “…anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.”  How can one DISCERN the body of the Lord in the bread if its NOT the body of the Lord?  To discern it as the body of the Lord means that the bread is, in fact, the body of the Lord.

And the last Scriptural verse that I want to bring to prove the Real Presence in the Eucharist are from the words of God Himself at the Last Supper.  Jesus raised the bread and said “This IS my Body.”  He didn’t say that the bread was just a symbol, a sign or a figure of His body.  He lifted up the bread and said “this IS my Body”.  He never pointed to a door and said “This is my body”.   God Himself said “Let there be light.  And there was light”.  God the Son said “This is my body” and so, no matter what our senses might tell us, we are obliged to believe Him.  That His Word has power.  For God, to say it is so…makes it so.

 

God Bless

Nathan

Real Presence, Reason 2

Last week we learned that we do in fact have extra-ordinary events, by that I mean unexplainable by scientific means, that prove the message of the True Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist. But as the Lord said to ‘doubting’ Thomas when he finally touched the wounds of Christ and believed: “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.”

Many have done just that, they have believed even when their senses tell them otherwise.   And so I come to my second reason to believe, its history.  We find in the writings of the early Christians, people throughout history who believed in the actual presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.  This belief is a continuous belief from the very first generation of Christians to today.  Those writings where they speak of others who do not believe in the True Presence are the beliefs of those who no one from today would even consider being Christians.  For 1500 years, until the Reformation, all Christians believed in the True Presence.  Here are a few quotes for your consideration…

A quote from St Ignatius of Antioch who heard the Apostle John speak and was the second successor of the Apostle Peter at Antioch.  He wrote in c.110 AD:

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us.  They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty.  They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness raised from the dead.” (Letter to the Ephesians, par. 20)

Here is a second quote from Ignatius:

“I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life.  I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.”

St Justin Martyr was born a pagan but converted to Christianity after studying philosophy.  He was beheaded with six of his companions some time between 163 and 167 A.D.  He said:

“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us.  For we do not receive these things as common bread and common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from Him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.”(First Apology, Ch. 66, c. 150 AD)

Cyril of Jerusalem at 350 AD said:

“He once in Cana of Galilee, turned water into wine, akin to blood, and is it incredible that He should have turned wine into blood?” 

Here’s another by Cyril:
“Then having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual Hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth His Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before Him; that He may make the Bread the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ; for whatsoever the Holy Ghost has touched, is surely sanctified and changed.”

I could go on but in the interest of time I will give you one last quote from an early Christian considered a saint and hero by many in the Protestant community.  St Augustine lived in the late fourth century at a time where great discussions were under way in determining which books actually belonged in our Bible.  He had no small part in cementing the canon of Books for the whole Christian community.  What he said on how he understood the words of our Lord at the Last Supper when He said “This is my Body” is my favorite quote on the Eucharist by an Early Church Father.  He said: “And was carried in His own hands: ‘how was He carried in his own hands’?  Because when He commended His own Body and Blood, He took into His hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said: ‘This is my Body’” (Augustine, on the Psalms, 33:1, c. 400 AD)

We can find this belief in the Real Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist in all 2,000 years of written Christian history from its first years after the Apostles to today.  No one can make that claim for a symbolic presence only.  In fact, you can’t find this understanding of a symbolic presence only about the blessed bread beyond 500 years ago.  Why is that?   Could it be because it simply wasn’t a belief the early Christians entertained, let alone accept in the early years of Christianity?  If that is the case then the belief in a symbolic presence only in the Eucharist should be rejected as the invention of man that it is.  Let us keep to the teachings of the early Christians who learned the faith from the Apostles and ultimately from God incarnate, Jesus Himself.

 

God Bless
Nathan